News Stories

On October 14, 2026 parties filed comments and exception in People’s Gas rate case including Governor Josh Shapiro’s administration’s urging the Commission to require Peoples to modify its application to ensure it does not impose unjustified rate increases on its customers and urged the Commission to reject or modify Peoples’ proposal in the absence of such a modification.

Highlights from comments/exceptions are presented below.

Gov. Shapiro “First, the Recommended Decision misrepresents the position on return on equity (“ROE”) that Governor Shapiro set forth in his April, 29, 2026 letter to utility leaders, which was entered into the record at a public hearing in this matter (“Governor’s letter”).

Second, the Recommended Decision erroneously concludes that if the Commission were to award a ROE based on the use of a formula described in the Governor’s letter, the Commission would depart from “established rate of return principles” and “risk conflict” with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Bluefield Water Works and Improvement Co. v. Public Service Comm’n of West Virginia, 262 U.S. 679 (1923) and Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas, 320 U.S. 591 (1944).

The Administration respectfully requests that the Commission decline to adopt these portions of Judge Collins’s Recommended Decisions.”

RESA – “RESA’s interest in this proceeding is narrow. RESA participated to oppose the proposal of the Coalition for Affordable Utility Services and Energy Efficiency in Pennsylvania (“CAUSE-PA”), later adopted by Peoples, to limit participation in Peoples’ Purchase of Receivables (“POR”) program to natural gas suppliers (“NGSs”) that price at or below Peoples’ price to compare (“PTC”). RESA takes no position in these Exceptions on any other issue.”

“The R.D. recommends that the Commission adopt the CAUSE-PA/Peoples’s proposal. But it does so without a single finding of fact on the subject, without a single conclusion of law, and without any reasoning at all. After describing the parties’ positions, the ALJ disposes of the issue in one sentence. The R.D. never addresses RESA’s arguments that the proposal is unauthorized regulation of NGS prices and unlawful discrimination, and it does not mention RESA’s evidence that the proponents failed to show any causal link between POR and supplier pricing, that the remedy is untethered to the harm alleged, and that the proposal is unworkable. The R.D. cannot be reconciled with its own statement of the governing legal standards, and on the merits the proposal is unlawful, unsupported, and contrary to long-standing Commission policy. The Commission should reject it.”

CAUSE-PA  – “Among other things, Cause argues that “the ALJ erred as a matter of fact and law by awarding an excessive return on equity despite substantial evidence of widespread unaffordability”

“The ALJ erred by approving Peoples proposed equity heavy capital structure.”

“The ALJ erred by allowing Peoples to increase its residential customer charge from $16.80 to $19.30, which impedes the Commission’s goal of encouraging energy efficiency and conservation”

“The ALJ erred by granting a $105.4 million rate increase based on an excessive ROE and equity heavy capital structure. “